]]>
By: The Samosa » Archive » Why Climate Change is more relevant to everyday concerns than ever https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/annals-of-global-warming-insurance-companies-note-increasing-costs-of-floods-due-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-255709
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:23:27 +0000http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?p=20183#comment-255709[…] Insurance The financial impact of flooding has doubled within the past ten years and the very real concern is that climate change will soon price people out of insuring their […]

]]>
By: Why Climate Change is more relevant to everyday concerns than ever | Liberal Conspiracy https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/annals-of-global-warming-insurance-companies-note-increasing-costs-of-floods-due-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-254594
Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:06:03 +0000http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?p=20183#comment-254594[…] Insurance The financial impact of flooding has doubled within the past ten years and the very real concern is that climate change will soon price people out of insuring their […]

]]>
By: Saturday salmagundi https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/annals-of-global-warming-insurance-companies-note-increasing-costs-of-floods-due-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-249659
Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:12:09 +0000http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?p=20183#comment-249659[…] why property insurance companies would be playing along with the supposed “hoax.” Insurers have been screaming bloody murder about climate change for decades. They have no incentive to be lying and they are not lying. They are very, very worried about […]

I think the title of the Time magazine cover “ How to win the war on global warming” is ridiculous , looking at physical record and the lack of warming , its no wonder that we have the newer 21st century problem of “climate Change “ instead. See the slight of hand, if evidence doesn’t fit the theory , re-jig theory so any evidence fits the theory.

Denying hypotheses is one thing, especially if there are contrary data. Denying the thermometers is quite different.

Sleight of hand? We’re not talking a rejiggering of theory here — you’re trying to rejigger history. If the evidence completely contradicts your hypothesis, claim the evidence goes the other way?

Skeptics don’t rejigger the evidence. They may withhold judgment, but they don’t deny the evidence that exists.

The Time cover suggests we can do something about global warming. As one of my professors in air pollution used to say, if we put it up there, we can bring it down. I remain convinced we can undo damage humans have done, and I understand we don’t have any time to dawdle. In short, I remain hopeful; but in any case, I refuse to give up and surrender to preventable catastrophe, as you ask.

]]>
By: Ed Darrell https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/annals-of-global-warming-insurance-companies-note-increasing-costs-of-floods-due-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-247512
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:27:42 +0000http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?p=20183#comment-247512Rereading, I see we should probably emphasize something that would be obvious to reasonable people, but which can be chased out of discussions with polemics.

Insurance companies’ concerns about global warming and its effects demonstrate the reality of the concerns, and the importance of the studies to determine how great the effects might be. Insurance companies live in a free market, basically. They need to make profits. Consequently, they cannot afford to dally with non-scientific claims that science isn’t solid. When there is evidence of a harm from climate change, insurance companies must act to protect their assets, to protect their businesses, and to protect their investors.

Asteroid insurance? You can’t buy it, and it’s not much of a topic of discussion among insurers. Zombie attack insurance? Can’t buy it, not even discussed. Climate change? Insurance companies insure against all kinds of weather damage, and against fire damage including wildfires. To the extent that warming affects what the insurance companies have to pay out, they are intensely interested, and they have already acted.

In short, in the marketplace of ideas alone, so-called “skeptics” who have religious-style beliefs that science is wrong, can get some traction. But in the marketplace of money, global warming denialists get no traction. In the marketplace, climate change skepticism isn’t even in the discount bins. It’s in the trash bin out back.

]]>
By: David xavier https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/annals-of-global-warming-insurance-companies-note-increasing-costs-of-floods-due-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-247494
Wed, 03 Oct 2012 07:13:54 +0000http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?p=20183#comment-247494ED says “So, since you’re unconvinced that the insurance companies are right, you think we should play down the part that you don’t like? Climate is a big issue; denialism is a complication.”
I am a skeptic I don’t ‘deny’ and I am not a “denier” . Such labeling is intimidation as it has a nasty connotation in that the word ‘denier’ used to disenfranchise and isolate people who say the holocaust doesn’t exist. And yes, Obviously the holocaust did take place, it is an objective ‘ fact’. But is AGW the primary driver in Climate change? Is that a proven fact? If you say it is then I am arguing with an enviro-religious nut.
I do not deny climate change , I am skeptical that AGW is the primary driver and that mankind can do much about it. I think the title of the Time magazine cover “ How to win the war on global warming” is ridiculous , looking at physical record and the lack of warming , its no wonder that we have the newer 21st century problem of “climate Change “ instead. See the slight of hand, if evidence doesn’t fit the theory , re-jig theory so any evidence fits the theory.
So Western governments decided not to listen to voices of dissent ( you know the denialists who complicate matters) and listened to the eco-warriors- the true believers ( or gate keepers of the truth in your speak) , and introduced some of the “wartime measures” the Time article wants. The EU decreed that 5.75 percent of petrol and diesel must come from “biofuels” by 2010, rising to 10 percent by 2020. The U.S. added to its 51 cents-per-gallon ethanol subsidy by mandating a five-fold increase in “biofuels” production by 2022.

The result is that big government accomplished at a stroke what the free market could never have done: They turned the food supply into a subsidiary of the energy industry. Warren Buffet was so pleased. When you divert 28 percent of U.S. grain into fuel production, and when you artificially make its value as fuel higher than its value as food, why be surprised that you’ve suddenly got less to eat? Or, to be more precise, it’s not “you” who’s got less to eat but those starving dusky coloured peasants in distant lands that you would certainly claim to care so much about.
So is skepticism a complication? Not is a brake on capricious action- action like adding ethanol to petrol and rising the cost of food for the developing world, or building inefficient and expensive windmills on the backs of subsidies so that parasites like Warren Buffet can get rich. Like impoverishing the Western world with carbon schemes that only make corporate world richer. Capricious action like allowing fracking for coal gas and the effect this will have on artesian water. Honestly, you don’t what complications in science? No questioning? Allow no alternative theory? No highlighting of the theories short comings?
Ed says “That is, you’re making our insurance costs rise when you block action to mitigate the damage, as you do by claiming “climate alarmism” is dead. Right. And malaria can be cured by more DDT, and HIV doesn’t affect heterosexuals, and the U.S.’s 305 million documented residents are being “over-run” by an undocumented contingent 3% as big. Got what you mean.”

Here is what the Swiss Re article states as the contributors to increasing costs of flood: population growth, demographic change, a higher concentration of assets in exposed areas, greater vulnerability of insured objects and climate change. The article itself singles out “Climate as a major driver” and uses the IPCC to underwrite such a claim. I am saying this is counter to the IPCC own predictions , that “..(AGW) signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame (coming decades)”. Yes there may be increased risks and exposure but that is impossible to determine if it is due to climate change. And any frequency increase would be exposed by the historical record and would be used to verify any increased occurrence. But the article mentions only costs which can be explained by the other more verifiable contributing factors. So the recent flood events in Thailand, Australia and the Philippines, were the floods unprecedented in size , frequency etc and hence due to climate change? The Australian floods were in line with the historic record, as were probably the others.
Clearly what I am saying is that the insurance companies want to use climate change as an excuse , without evidence , to lift premiums.
What is occurring in the media is that a cabal of scientists have a government funded money stream and are milking it for all its worth through shrill alarmist predictions that have a history of not occurring , or opportunistically linking every weather event to AGW. I can almost hear old Noam Chomsky intone ..”Just Follow the money..” yes the AGW industry is not about to start telling anything like the truth and the media isn’t about to start holding them to account, that would stop the Gov bucks from flowing. And the banking sector just can’t wait to invent another derivative based on carbon. Then you have the true believers , like NASA’s Holdren , who are quite scary, who want to suspend democracy on the back of a theory with question marks all over it( its reliant on modeling that cant accurately predict the past present or future for a start) …. As I said , the scientists, pseudo scientists ,environmentalists, leftists, DNC are trying to ‘manufacture consent’ for the government to enact more regulations and intrusions into the American people’s lives. But there are some who want bigger government and a more managed life, to be given a phone and stuff, so this isn’t a problem and they would actually applaud it.
As for the ad hominem attacks linking skeptics to silly conspiracy- skeptics look at the physical record and see yawning gaps in the AGW theory. We aren’t predisposed to conspiracy … it’s about the politicization of science hence your mis-direction.